The plaintiff erroneously claims that in a mixed community, the reputation of belonging to the dominant race, in this case the white race, is “property” in the same sense that a right of action or inheritance is property. If we accept this, we do not see, for the purposes of this case, how this law deprives him of that property or in any way interferes with his right to do so. If he is a white man and assigned to a coach of color, he can file his claim for damages against the company because he was deprived of his so-called “property.” On the other hand, if he is a colored man and so assigned, no property has been taken from him because he does not have the legitimate reputation of being a white man. The Great Migration was the resettlement of more than 6 million black Americans from the rural South to cities in the North, Midwest, and West from about 1916 to 1970. Expelled by unsatisfactory economic opportunities and harsh segregationist laws, many blacks. In the 1950s, the rigid legal doctrine that supported segregation was finally weakened. Thurgood Marshall was preparing for the final legal assault on school segregation, but he met with great opposition, even from many supporters of full racial equality. They thought that the time had not yet come for such drastic social and legal changes. They feared that the Supreme Court would dismiss a case that seeks complete racial integration into all American public education.
Such defeat, they argued, would lead to more frustration, persistent racial inequality and a lack of opportunity. Plessyv. Ferguson is a court case in which the United States. The Supreme Court proposed the controversial “separate but equal” doctrine, according to which laws requiring racial segregation (usually of African Americans and whites) in public places (e.g., inns and public transportation) are constitutional, provided the separate facilities are equal for each race. Following the Supreme Court`s Brown decision, the Court continued to overturn legal segregation in the 1950s and 1960s. In a series of brief notices, the court prohibited segregation on buses, parks, public golf courses and other venues. In each case, the court cited Brown`s opinion. It upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the Court ruled that states could no longer prohibit people of different races from marrying.
In that decision, Chief Justice Warren noted that the Virginia law, which the court declared invalid, only supported the doctrine of white supremacy. By the late 1960s, the court had ruled against all aspects of legal segregation. The constitutionality of this law is challenged on the grounds that it is contrary to both the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which abolishes slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits certain restrictive laws by states. Thus, with respect to a conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, the case boils down to the question of whether the Louisiana Statute is reasonable regulation, and there must necessarily be considerable discretion on the part of the legislature in this regard. In deciding on the question of reasonableness, he shall be free to act with reference to the established customs, customs and traditions of the people and with a view to promoting their comfort and maintaining public peace and order. By this standard, we cannot say that a bill authorizing or even requiring the separation of the two races on public transportation is unreasonable or more repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment than congressional bills mandating separate schools for children of color in the District of Columbia whose constitutionality does not appear to have been challenged. or the corresponding laws of state legislators. The correct interpretation of this amendment was first brought to the Court`s attention in the Slaughterhouse cases, 16 Wall.
36, which, however, was not a question of race, but of exclusive privileges. The case did not require the expression of an opinion on the precise rights it should guarantee to the colored race, but it was generally stated that its primary purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and the United States, and to protect the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against hostile state legislation. unlike those of state citizens. The purpose of the amendment was undoubtedly to impose the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but it was in the nature of things that it could not be intended to abolish distinctions based on skin color or to impose social differences distinct from political equality or mixing of the two races under conditions unsatisfactory to both. Laws permitting, and even prescribing, their segregation in places where they can be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of one race to another, and have been universally, if not universally, recognized as falling within the competence of state legislators in the exercise of their police power. The most common case is associated with the establishment of separate schools for white and black children, which have been considered a valid exercise of legislative power even by the courts of the states where the political rights of the colored race have been applied the longest and most seriously. One such class action, Brown v. Board of Education, was filed by plaintiff representative Oliver Brown against the Topeka School Board in Kansas, whose children were denied access to white schools in Topeka. Brown claimed that Topeka`s racial segregation violated the Constitution`s equality clause because the city`s black and white schools were not equal and never could be. The district court dismissed his complaint, ruling that segregated public schools were “essentially” equal enough to be constitutional under the Plessy Doctrine. Brown filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court summarizing all school segregation lawsuits for review.